Should firefox use this much memory?

[VanillaMozilla]

FF will not deallocate the mem once you open and close tabs.

But it does deallocate memory. Here's a pretty spectacular example. Fx was loaded up with huge Web sites, so it used 421 MB. The maximum memory use at any time was 30 MB for Fx itself. The rest was for actual data. Then the tabs were closed and it used only 22 MB plus 17 MB of cached data.

Here's another example. Loaded up to 180 MB total with random browsing. When tabs were closed, only 52 MB code + 20 MB cache remained. This one at least indicates a hint of a problem, but no one pursued it.

It's not necessary to shout. Just present your data. It's your turn. We want to see your numbers.

Just a couple of rules. Please read those two links first, so you know the pitfalls of measuring memory use in a Windows environment. Note also that a lot of people confuse cached data with failure to deallocate memory. And please use a new profile and use RC3. I don't want to argue about random extensions or a version that will be outdated in less than a month.

[VanillaMozilla]

Here's a happy customer. "Well, you're not going to believe this, but... I just read this thread: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=320838 ...<b>I followed the directions and ...Guess what?!? It halved memory useage!</b> "

If you want help, don't forget to tell us what you have done to solve the problem.

[temeorr]

FF will not deallocate the mem once you open and close tabs.

But it does deallocate memory. Here's a pretty spectacular example. Fx was loaded up with huge Web sites, so it used 421 MB. The maximum memory use at any time was 30 MB for Fx itself. The rest was for actual data. Then the tabs were closed and it used only 22 MB plus 17 MB of cached data.

Here's another example. Loaded up to 180 MB total with random browsing. When tabs were closed, only 52 MB code + 20 MB cache remained. This one at least indicates a hint of a problem, but no one pursued it.

It's not necessary to shout. Just present your data. It's your turn. We want to see your numbers.

Just a couple of rules. Please read those two links first, so you know the pitfalls of measuring memory use in a Windows environment. Note also that a lot of people confuse cached data with failure to deallocate memory. And please use a new profile and use RC3. I don't want to argue about random extensions or a version that will be outdated in less than a month.

Here is where I wasnt clear. Yes links opened in tabs and then closed will reallocate mem. The problem is when I open a group of tabs from the bookmarks toolbar. In this case the mem is not reallocated. Give it a try. Sorry for not being clearer. Thanks for your examples so far.

[temeorr]

I should have said after I close the bookmark tabs that I opened. The problem for me is bookmarks toolbar specific. Once again this is not a critical issue for me but somewhat bothersome after utilizing another browser for so long. Thanks man

[VanillaMozilla]

The problem is when I open a group of tabs from the bookmarks toolbar. In this case the mem is not [d]eallocated.

If you can give specific steps to duplicate the problem, I can try to have a look at it, or maybe someone else will be able to verify it. Or if you want, you could register and post the steps on the Bugs Forum yourself.

[temeorr]

I wanted quicker access to more bookmarks closer to the browser window without extending off the screen. In this case instead of having a row of website bookmarks on the bookmarks toolbar I created a row of folders. This can easily be done through the bookmark manager. I then installed groupings of sites into their respective folders; Sports,Jokes,Music etc. If you then right click on one of the folders it gives you a choice to "open in tabs". In this case all of the bookmarks inside the folder open in tabs. When you close the tabs the mem is not deallocated.
You are absolutely right about opening links from web pages in tabs. The mem is deallocated.

[VanillaMozilla]

What specifically would I be looking for? How much memory increase do you see? How many sites do you need to open? What Fx version and OS? Any extensions?

[temeorr]

ff 1.0.7 WinXP Sp2 Just create one folder on your bookmarks toolbar. Then bookmark two different sites or a number of your liking. Start task manager and write down the current ff usage. Right click on the folder and open all tabs. Write down the ff usage from Task Manager. Close all of the tabs now. Go back to task manager and tell me what has happened. There is no deallocation of memory under this process. Now if you reopen those same bookmarked tabs even more mem is allocated.

[VanillaMozilla]

Works for me. Deallocates memory perfectly.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7. No extensions. No Flash plugin.


Two sites in folder "Test" on Bookmarks Toolbar: (1) http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questio ... especific; (2) http://www.antrx.com/smf/index.php?topic=4976.0 (warning -- this is huge).

=============================
VM | Mem.Cache* | Difference (there are three columns of data, but it's difficult to format)
=============================
"about:cache" is the only open tab.
8800 kB 253 kB 8547 kB

Rt. click on "Test" folder. "Open in tabs".
207736 200781 6955 (Note: all but 6955 kB is memory cache, used to store images!)

Rt. click on "about:cache". Close other tabs. Refresh about:cache.
27220 15850 11370

Reopen the Test folder in the same way.
209804 200781 7023 (only 7023 kB for code!)

Close other tabs and refresh and refresh about:cache
26456 14759 11697


Results: After that exercise I count only 12 MB for code plus 15 MB in memory cache, for images. 26 MB total. I admit, 12 MB for code is more than the original 9 MB, but I've never seen it use less than 12 MB after a few minutes of browsing.

Conclusions: essentially all memory deallocated. No additional memory used on repeating the cycle. Note that the cache started out empty, and was filled to 15 MB at the end. This is by design, and not a memory leak.


Footnote
------------------
*Memory Cache Device "Storage in use" from about:cache page.

[temeorr]

No doubt it was huge. Nice pics on top of that. I had to adjust my cache sets to accomodate it. I inherited the web page into one of self created toolbar folders. It did deallocate like you said it would. When the mem allocation is under 70 or so I do not see the high percentage deallocation as I saw when closing the large test page. Like I said earlier I expected to see instant drops back down to the minimal mem usage stage that IE has shown. If this is done by design I can live with it. I am sure they will tweak it more. Thankyou very much
VanMoz. Thankyou for taking the time and effort to help me and I am sure many others. Talk to you soon.

Temeorr

[Guest]

VanillaMozilla here is a suggestion that I think may be helpful, why dont the Forum Administrator create a "sticky" suggestion exactly how you want a memory question asked. Secificly what information is need and how to get that information. Some here are not that tech literate and need explicid directions.

Or here is a better idea create a little program that will supply the information needed. I only wish I could program I would do it.

My orignial post on this forum was done becouse I notice a problem and not only wanted to find a solution for myself but help make the app. better.

[VanillaMozilla]

That's a good idea. It's unfortunate that people see high memory use and they jump to conclusions and come out swinging. And people who provide support can be grouchy about it too. Then it's awfully hard to persuade someone to try a little diagnosis or repair. Troubleshooting is not very well presented or accessible, I know. Sometimes those adverse conclusions may be correct, by the way, but it's often hard to get anything conclusive enough for a bug report.

Did you get it working well?

[Guest]

No I am going to cross my fingers and hope final release takes care of it, and maybe take a look at Opera. Thanks though.

[Early Seshadri]

But for a bit of cluttered GUI, I think Opera is reasonably good.

[VanillaMozilla]

Original Guest,
Maybe I missed this, but I don't recall any mention of a real problem (such as a computer slowdown while using Fx). You have a lot of memory -- it looks like 1 to 2 GB -- so 150 MB may not cause you any problem unless you have some other special application that you must run simultaneously. If you don't have a performance problem, maybe you should just take your eye off the VM meter and be happy.

If those are fighting words, then you might try just one more attempt at solving the problem.

Not all problems are solved by Safe Mode or by a new profile. I would suggest a clean sweep, which guarantees a new, pristine copy of Firefox.
1. Uninstall Fx and reinstall <i>in a new directory (important!)</i>.
2. Create a new profile with the Profile Manager. DO NOT SPECIFY A DIRECTORY FOR THE PROFILE. JUST ACCEPT THE DEFAULT!!

Normal memory use for you would be between about 12 MB and 95 MB VM size, with just the about:cache page loaded (no other tabs or windows). That breaks down as 12 to 50 MB code plus 0 to 45 MB in memory cache. If low memory use while idling is your main goal in life, you can reduce the cache size. Also, if low memory use is your main goal, try Opera. There you get to use your hard drive instead of memory.

Good luck.